For all the nay sayers, you should probably go over and fix the wikipedia article on Electroencephalography (EEG) because “thought obviously CAN’T effect the physical world.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography
And after that, write and tell Scott Makeig, director of the University of California, San Diego’s Swartz Center for Computational Neuroscience (SCCN) in La Jolla, Calif. that his work on current advances in electroencephalographic brain-wave detection technology is a hoax as well, because “thought obviously CAN’T effect the physical world.” :-P http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wireless-brain-wave-monitor/
And after that, get on your cell phone and call the local mystic guru and tell them you can’t send “vibes” through a crystal. The crystal raido and tech based on it is all a hoax as well… :-P
Since thought CAN effect elements used in EEG sensors, then it stands to reason it may actually be having an effect on how water crystals form.
Truth be told, since EEG tech proves that, in fact, thought has an observable and measurable effect on the physical world, Dr. Emoto’s work is at least *based* on a solid foundation. Granted, Dr. Emoto’s conclusions and experiments built upon this foundation need further research.
But consider this: Since any of these experiments people are doing is effected by thought, then any doubts will taint results (or at least be a factor that would need to be considered). Good luck creating a “sterile” environment and calculating all the variables. I think the guys choice to select people who had less preconceived notions, over the doubtful scientific types who come with a head full of preconceptions was a wise choice. Perhaps the use of Buddhist monks or Yogis who have spent many years practicing meditation would be the best people to use to set up the experiments. :-P
Further, just because the guy is into alternative medicine should be no reason to discredit his work. Granted, for 100′s of years people have used crystals in “magic,” and their “magic” and explanations of it are full of a lot of BS, but… the crystal raido proves it wasn’t *all* BS… Many things have, and are, being proven to be true about some of the “old magics,” and the science fiction of yesterday has become the reality of today.
All these people I have seen claiming to have “debunked” and “discredited” Emoto’s theories are as full of shit as the “experts” who said it was impossible for a human being to run a 5 minuet mile, to fly, to send men into space, etc.. — Unsigned, by: 188.8.131.52 / talk / contribs 00:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- How far from the brain do you think the changes in electrical field due to neuronal activity is detectable? And since the only thing EEG is picking up is current through a wire, how would you tell the difference between brain electrical field versus say powerlines? tmtoulouse 00:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- The argument isn't "thought cannot affect the physical world at all", but rather "thought cannot affect the physical world by that much." Are you aware of how EEGs work? To detect the difference in electrical potential just on the skin used to require very sensitive electrodes coated with sticky conductive gel, and even then the resultant signals are amplified some 10,000 times in order to be visible on screen or on the graph paper. Even with the advances Maekig made, they're only possible with the advent of more sensitive equipment in smaller forms. Saying that you can affect water sitting in a glass on the table in front of you using the electricity generated by your brain is like saying that you can move the moon out of orbit by yelling at it.
- Also, if you can find a yogi that can generate electromagnetic frequencies that can be picked up on a modern crystal radio, James Randi has a million dollars for you. Many old "magics" have been turned into science, yes, but for every "Meadowsweet herb → Aspirin" and "Invisibility spell → Rochester cloak", there have been entire libraries of other ideas that have been proposed, believed, and/or used, but then failed or disproven. We've seen way too many people believe earnestly in pseudoscientific ideas, only to end up losing their time, their money, and/or (in worst case) their well-being or their lives to chasing rainbows or to opportunistic charlatans. Forgive us if our standards of evidence are a little higher than what you may be used to. :-P Noir LeSable (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)